It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do Atheist Bow to Anthromophism?

page: 13
3
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi



Scientists of the day had focused their thinking on linear systems, where the whole is essentially the sum of the parts. However, there had been a number of instances where linear functions did not explain the behavior of the system, such as with Lorenz. Non-linear systems are much harder to describe since the mathematical equations cannot be added together to produce new systems as with linear systems.

This phenomenon has been observed in such diverse areas as fluid dynamics, the motion of planets, economic cycles, general relativity, and in broad psycho-social systems. However, it has only been since the middle of the 20th century that mathematical techniques have been developed to deal with them.


Source

Its is actually very simple to understand once you put some effort into it.

Any thoughts?



edit on 29-12-2015 by Kashai because: Content edit




posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai




Any thoughts?


Yes. You seem to be avoiding my direct questions.

I ask of you to please answer my 2 questions which I have clearly marked. If that is too difficult for you then please stop responding to me with off the wall things.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Essentially the "we" is Scientist that acknowledge Chaos theory as a way to understand complex systems mathematically.

That has been made evident.

Further...

Stock Market Application


Chaos Theory, stock market style, assumes market expectations are rational, albeit “omniscient about the future,” according to Mises Institute scientists. Positing an interconnection between patterns, people and events that are anything but random, Chaos Theorists say the ability to predict whether or not a stock will rise or fall based on global chaos requires periods of tranquility amid episodes of chaos. “Europe’s inability to deal with their debt crisis,” says “Forbes” magazine, is an example of a period of chaos affecting market performance across the globe.


Source


One could study Chaos theory in relation to Bathing Practices and probably isolate a relation. In respect to those who bath every day and those who bath once a week to minor infections.

Further...

Chaos Theory and Nursing

Chaos theory and Cancer

Chaos Theory and the Brain

Chaos Theory and Disaster Management

Chaos theory and Social Systems

I mean seriously...

Any thoughts?
edit on 29-12-2015 by Kashai because: Content edit

edit on 29-12-2015 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
How can this topic still be going???

How far off the rails can one keep coasting until a full stop???

Honestly I dare not even ask what the current argument is for risk I'll be sucked into the black hole of it myself.

You should all be asking yourselves, "Is this worth it??"
edit on 29-12-2015 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai




Essentially the "we" is Scientist that acknowledge Chaos theory


Thank you for answering my first question.

As for my second question about scientific consensus I see that would be impossible.


Chaos theory is interesting, but IMO far from a being a reason to believe in deities.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

The first part of Wisdom is, "I do not know".

To claim that what we today understand as a 92 billion wide object that is 13.8 billion years old. Where about 20 years ago everyone agreed that it was 13.7 billion light years wide and 13.7 billion light years old is problematic at best.

Order and non-randomness in so far as what we understand fully does not appear to exist.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Yet none of that points to a creator.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

In presents that reality could in fact be the result of a non-random event. In science things are essentially "ruled out". Unless they can be supported by data that present that it cannot.

In this case given what we know about reality at present God cannot be ruled out.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkwarrior

originally posted by: Ghost147
Again, Atheism isn't a belief system. Other members in this thread have already shown that Atheists can believe in a variety of things, and hold any number of positions and opinions. The only thing that universally connects Atheists as a whole, is a lack of belief in gods


A belief system is individual...basically how you reason everything that happens (ie "everything happens for a reason", God, a belief that it was never God, etc). Lack of a belief is indeed an actual belief. Put down the double-speak/smoke/mirrors lol

Alternatively...the entire existence of the atheist following merely confirms the existence of the God/Gods in question, because if they didn't exist then you wouldn't have anything to denounce. But hey...non-believing is the new believing lol


You know it is possible given what we actually understand about reality, you could be right.

Any thoughts?



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Many things can't be ruled out, but that doesn't give me a reason to believe in them.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Belief is related to religion.

in my perspective I keep an open mind to all possibilities until I see material evidence to the alternative.

I mean by that the once mankind has developed the means to address the Universe in a deductive way I am prepared to withhold judgment. In context to what is actually provable today I see no evidence of a Non-Random Universe, therefore as it stands God could exist.

In context, if the Universe resulted from nothing there should be evidence of nothing.

Where is it?

To suggest that such a phenomenon is only represented with respect to how the Universe was Created, I feel is inappropriate.




edit on 29-12-2015 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai




Belief is related to religion.


If you insist, but back to what I said. Many things can't be ruled out, but that doesn't give me a reason to believe in them.




In context, if the Universe resulted from nothing there should be evidence of nothing.


That is an interesting opinion, but I still don't see any reason to believe in deities.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

I am not offering absolutes it is simply an opinion based on current evidence.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Without evidence that something exists I have no reason to believe in that something.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Without absolute evidence that God does not exist I consider otherwise.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   
To be apparent if there is an order that is apparent there is no reason to deny that such order is valid everywhere.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai




Without absolute evidence that God does not exist I consider otherwise.


No one says you can't, but your opinion doesn't give me a reason to believe.



To be apparent if there is an order that is apparent there is no reason to deny that such order is valid everywhere.


Unfortunately, it isn't apparent to such a degree that there is a scientific consensus that agrees with you.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 10:25 PM
link   
As I have explained and in terms of what is actually understood there is consensus as this modeling (Chaos theory) is applicable in general even such issues as Crime management.

As far as consensus science agrees with me in relation to issues that it actually understand really well.

What evidence do you have to offer otherwise??





edit on 29-12-2015 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 10:36 PM
link   
The Illusion of Randomness

Predicable Evolution

Are you actually asking me to account for the motivations of every scientist on the planet.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Chaos theory doesn't say there is a creator. That seems to be your own interpretation of what it says.

Stating Chaos theory is evidence of a creator is simply a version of "god of the gaps fallacy".


There is no scientific consensus that states "chaos theory" is evidence of a creator.



What evidence do you have to offer otherwise.


I have never seen any evidence of a creator which is why I have no reason to believe they exist.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join